Sanctioning Death: The War Against Iraq's People

	Written in 1999 by Inter-Church Action, a predecessor coalition of KAIROS, this fact sheet offers background to the churches’ perspective on sanctions that were put in place to isolate Saddam Hussein’s regime following the 1991 Gulf War. It places priority on the perspective of partners in the region, and should now be read as background to the current conflict in Iraq

Contents

• Bombs Away - "What we say goes!"
• What is a Weapon of Mass Destruction?
• What if Iraq's Main Export was Broccoli?
• But what about…? (Frequently Asked Questions)
• Church Response to Iraqi Suffering
• The Canadian Government and Iraq
• How can we respond?
  

Abdullah al-Abad sits on the curb in front of the al-Fanar Hotel on a busy Baghdad street. Unlike many 19 year olds in other parts of the world, Abdullah is not preparing to enter university or college. Instead he shines shoes for a living, working long hours to wait for the half dozen customers who can afford the 25 cents he charges. As is the case for many families in Iraq, his $1.50 contribution each day is essential for the basic needs of food and shelter in his household. Abdullah longs for some escape from his tedious job and the poverty of his family. His entire life has been lived in the context of war and scarcity. Although it is difficult to imagine a brighter future, he yearns for something better.

The past twenty years have not been kind to the people of Iraq. For most of the 1980s, Iraq was locked in a brutal war with Iran that left nearly half a million Iraqis dead. Then in 1991, a US-led coalition of forces pulverized the Gulf state, dropping more tonnes of bombs in six weeks than were used in all of World War II. No one knows exactly how many people died in Iraq during those six weeks, although a common estimate is 250,000 people.

But the Gulf War did not end on February 25, 1991 when the troops of Iraqi president Saddam Hussein were forced out of Kuwait, a country Iraq had invaded six months earlier. The United Nations, urged primarily by the US and Britain, imposed comprehensive economic sanctions in order to eliminate Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" (see box below) and to force Iraq to pay war reparations to Kuwait. The sanctions prohibited any country in the world from doing business with Iraq, effectively cutting Iraq off from global commerce.

In theory the sanctions made some provisions for essentially needed items such as food and medicines to enter the country. But the humanitarian provision was an empty shell, and in reality, for nearly five years only a trickle of supplies found its way into Iraq. Its industry and economy reduced to rubble by the Gulf War, and unable to sell its most valuable export of oil, Iraq had no money to buy even basic food supplies, of which it imported 70 percent before 1990. Even when supplies did finally enter the country, the lack of infrastructure - warehouses, transportation and communication systems - made distribution all but impossible.

In 1996, after the UN faced growing criticism that it was starving Iraqis to death, a program was introduced to allow Iraq to sell its oil to buy more humanitarian supplies. But the much needed supplies have continuously faced another obstacle: a UN sanctions committee must approve all contracts for goods entering Iraq. The committee meticulously screens out any items that may also be used for military purposes, so-called "dual use" items. Thus, any good that could even remotely be used in a military capacity was banned. A spark plug would be needed to transport food to people but because it could also be used in a military vehicle, it was vetoed. Baking soda might be used to make chemical weapons. Inexplicably, the thousands of items banned from Iraq over the past ten years have included light bulbs, shampoo, books, coffins and shoes. In summary, the dual use provision of the sanctions has been invoked repeatedly by the American and British delegates on the committee to prevent the entry of vitally needed civilian goods into Iraq. As of July 2000, these delegates had vetoed 1,989 contracts for goods to be imported by Iraq.

Ostensibly meant to punish the Iraqi government leaders, the sanctions have instead caused unprecedented suffering to the civilian population. Even a cursory review of a few basic statistics reveals the severity of this impact over the past decade.

• In 1997 UNICEF estimated that 1.2 million Iraqis had died as a result of the sanctions over the previous seven years. Including the period since then, it is estimated that over 1.5 million people have died, the majority being those already most vulnerable in society: the very young, the elderly and the sick.
• An August 1999 UNICEF survey showed that under age 5 mortality rates had risen from 56 deaths per 1,000 births (1984-89) to 131 per 1,000 births (1994-99).
• Child malnourishment has increased 300 percent since 1991.
• Maternal mortality rates have more than doubled during the period of the sanctions and 70 percent of Iraqi women suffer from anemia.

The huge changes in mortality and other health and welfare indicators result from a combination of shattered infrastructure and loss of income and purchasing power for Iraqis. Hospitals and sanitation systems are in a dilapidated state. Many of the deaths of children are due to water- borne diseases since the water and sewer systems are barely functioning. The shortage of basic food and household items has resulted in astronomical inflation in Iraq, rendering the Iraqi currency almost worthless. In 1990 one dinar was worth about $4.00 Canadian. Ten years later, $1.00 is worth approximately 1,500 dinars. The average salary in Iraq for public employees is between $3 and $7 per month.

At the same time, salaries have remained stagnant resulting in a staggering loss of purchasing power as shown in the following table, which provides information on the cost of some basic goods in Iraq (given in Canadian equivalents). For comparison purposes, the right-hand column shows what the price would be in Canada if we had to pay an equivalent percentage of our salaries for this item (averages used: Iraqi salary - $5/month; Canadian salary - $3,000/month).
In Iraq If the cost of living were the same in Canada, we'd pay....

These stark figures are only one indication of the precipitous decline of Iraqi society. Increases in begging and prostitution, loss of cultural life, and massive unemployment in all sectors means that for those who have not been killed by the sanctions, daily life is a miserable struggle to survive. The UN itself stated before the Gulf War that Iraq was on the verge of approximating the standard of living in developed countries. But by 1999 a humanitarian panel reported to the UN that Iraq had "experienced a shift from relative affluence to massive poverty" (March 1999 report to UN).

Denis Halliday, a former UN humanitarian coordinator in Iraq who resigned from his position in 1999 in protest against the sanctions, sums up the decade-long sanctions war: "We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral."

The sanctions against the Iraqi people amount to an injustice of grave proportions. As Christians, we are called by God to speak out against oppression and injustice. Why do the sanctions continue? What purpose do they now serve? What can we do to work for peace in Iraq? What is our Canadian government doing? To learn more, read on.

	Bombs Away - "What we say goes!"

On May 12, 1999 Nazar al-Asar was resting in the shade of a date palm near his village of Abuwini in the northern part of Iraq, watching his livestock of goats and sheep nearby. Suddenly a bright flash lit the sky followed by a thunderous explosion near the tent where his neighbours and friends had gathered. Nazar and others rushed to the scene to tend to the victims. As they attempted to sort through the chaos and confusion in the aftermath of the explosion, another missile was fired from a US warplane that had been circling high in the sky above. Fourteen farmers and shepherds were killed, and 22 were injured, including Nazar. To this day, no explanation of why this remote area was targeted, nor an apology for the civilian deaths has been issued by the US government.

The surrender of the Iraqi government on February 25, 1991 did not end the military assault on Iraq. The US and Britain have repeatedly bombed Iraq on the pretense that UN resolutions do not require them to seek the authority of the Security Council. In December 1998 Operation Desert Fox was launched with more than 1,000 missiles and bombs targeted against Iraq over four days. Hundreds of civilians died with many more injured.

Since those four days, US and British war planes have regularly launched bombing raids against Iraq on the average of once every three days. Although the targets are supposedly military installations, as Nazar's story above indicates, the bombs often fall nowhere near their ostensible target. Even though there has been significant loss of life and extensive damage to civilian facilities as a result of these raids, they go almost totally unreported in the media.

Ironically, while the government of Saddam Hussein is often decried by the West as showing no respect for international law and order, the bombings and the sanctions themselves are violations of international laws that apply to situations of armed conflict. Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions (1977) prohibits the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare or the rendering useless of objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population. The same body of laws contain specific provisions to protect women and children, two social groups that have been hardest hit by the sanctions. The sanctions also contravene other international agreements, such as the Convention of the Rights of the Child and Human Rights Covenants.
The international laws and agreements that are agreed to at the UN form a vital framework for governing relationships and behaviour between nations. If they are ignored, then those nations that are most powerful become a law unto themselves. Indeed, this is one of the frightening lessons of the decade-long war against Iraq, perhaps summed up best in four words thundered by former US President George Bush as missiles rained down on Iraq in 1991: "What we say goes!"

Top of page

	What is a Weapon of Mass Destruction?

Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are defined by the UN as chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. One of the main objectives of the sanctions is to eliminate Iraq's WMD. While Iraq used chemical weapons during the 1980s both against Iran and the northern Kurds, and was not sanctioned by the US or Britain for doing so - both countries provided shipment of materials to Iraq for its chemical and biological weapons in the 1980's - Iraq did not use any such weapons in the Gulf War.

Does Iraq still have such weapons? Scott Ritter, a former US Marine and senior UN weapons inspector in Iraq stated in 1999 that the country had effectively been disarmed and possessed "no meaningful weapons of mass destruction capability." Rather than proving that Iraq still has such weapons, sanctions proponents want the onus to be on proving that Iraq has no such weapons, a task that is likely impossible or at least endless.

On the other hand, the US fired 320 tons of radioactive depleted uranium (half-life of 4.5 billion years) during six weeks of the Gulf War. Iraqi doctors now report exponential increases in cases of leukemia, birth defects and other diseases linked to depleted uranium. US Gulf War military personnel have also reported strange new ailments that are clearly linked to their exposure to radioactive dust on the Iraq battlefields. A nuclear weapon?

The US and Britain have also been key in blocking imports of vaccines, insecticides and other biological products, the lack of which have resulted in thousands of deaths in Iraq. A biological weapon?

The sanctions themselves are responsible for over 1.5 million deaths in Iraq, over half of them children. A weapon of mass destruction?

Top of page

	What if Iraq's Main Export was Broccoli?

When oil was discovered at the end of the 19th century, the Middle East region was catapulted into a high stakes game as various colonial powers vied to control the area's rich oilfields. Iraq holds the second largest oil reserves in the world and this "black gold" is one of the main reasons why the US, Britain and other world powers have regularly intervened in the Middle East.

Oil, for better (for those countries that have it and the oil companies that control it) or worse (the burning of fossil fuels is a major contributor to global pollution and the wars over it have killed millions of people), has become the lifeblood of the world economy. Ensuring steady supplies of it at a stable price is one of the key foreign policy interests of the industrialized countries.

Given that the Middle East supplies one-third of the world's oil, the US has exercised a combination of two strategies to ensure that the pipeline flows freely: huge amounts of military and other aid to "friendly" Arab leaders (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait), or containment of regimes through sanctions and other dubious methods (Iraq, Iran, Libya).

Thus, during the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s, the US supplied Iraq with financial and military support for fear that Iran would win and become overly powerful in the region. Over the latter half of the 20th century, Iraq has been variously characterized as a friend of the west and a terrorist state, depending on the circumstances at the time. For example, when the Kurds in northern Iraq were brutally suppressed by the Iraqi military in 1988, which included the use of poison gas, sanctions against the Iraqi government were minimal and the US Department of Commerce continued to allow military sales to Iraq. Similarly, Iraq's use of chemical weapons in its war with Iran was virtually ignored by the US and its allies. It was only after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait with its rich oilfields that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction became an issue requiring action.

The inconsistent treatment of Iraq indicates that the West's main preoccupation is not with human rights or democracy - or even military weapons, with which the US and other major arms suppliers have inundated the Middle East. Rather, it is the strategic control of oil. The message to all countries in this volatile and strategically important region is clear: the West will use lethal and brutal force to ensure compliance with its strategic interests. The combination of bombing and sanctions sends a chilling warning to any other country, in the Middle East or elsewhere, that the consequences of not playing by the rules set by the West will be dramatic. The lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children have become pawns in this exercise of policing the world. This was acknowledged explicitly in 1996 by the US Ambassador to the UN, Madeleine Albright, who was asked whether the price of the lives of 500,000 children was worth the objectives of the US in Iraq. Her surprising candid answer: "The price, we think, is worth it."

Top of page

	But what about…? Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Haven't the Canadian churches called for economic sanctions in the past as an alternative to war?

A: At times, yes. Each country and situation must be considered separately in terms of the impact and effects of sanctions. Several key questions must be considered: What position do the citizens of the targeted government take? Will the possible benefits of sanctions outweigh any negative consequences? In Iraq the vast majority of people are opposed to the sanctions. And the catastrophic impact of the sanctions on Iraqi civilians who bear no responsibility for their government's policies leave no doubt as to the second question.
Clearly in Iraq the sanctions have become another form of warfare rather than an alternative to it. They have become an injustice rather than a tool to promote justice.

Q: Isn't the suffering of the Iraqi people the fault of their president, Saddam Hussein? Wouldn't the sanctions be lifted if he complied with UN resolutions?

A: Saddam Hussein has proven himself to be a brutal ruler in his 21 years of rule, with little regard for civil and political human rights. But as one Iraqi mother remarked, "If you want to punish an evil father in a big family, do you do so by killing his children?"

Former UN weapons inspectors state that from 1994 to 1998, they were able to oversee the qualitative disarmament of Iraq. However, the UN resolutions require verification of total disarmament, something that may be impossible to ever attain. Even if the Iraqi government decides it will no longer attempt to comply with UN resolutions, the policy of sanctions simply holds millions of civilians hostage to their government's non-compliance.
Furthermore, the US has stated on several occasions that the sanctions will remain as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power. Such statements provide little incentive for Iraq to further cooperate with the UN inspections.

Q: What about the ethnic Kurds in northern Iraq? Wouldn't we be leaving them vulnerable if the sanctions and no-fly zones were ended?

A: The Kurds are a distinct ethnic group with their own language and cultural identity who live in northern Iraq, Turkey, Iran and Armenia. They have been subject to fierce persecution by the Iraqi government, culminating in a systematic campaign in the late 1980s that included the use of poison gas, forced relocations, and outright "disappearances" that have left tens of thousands of Kurds unaccounted for. Ironically, the Kurds are also oppressed by the Turkish government, but as an important NATO ally, Turkey has not been opposed for its own atrocities. Kurdish aspirations for security and autonomy must be promoted, but these goals are not at cross-purposes with ending the sanctions. The international community must come up with a clear political response to the plight of the Kurds that involves all four countries currently home to the Kurds. In lieu of such political will, no-fly zones and sanctions are simply tools of self-interest that masquerade as solutions to the Kurdish crisis.

Q: Doesn't the UN "Oil for Food" program address the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people?

A: In 1996, facing a huge outcry over the negative impact of the sanctions, the UN finally relented and allowed Iraq to sell some of its oil to generate the money needed to buy essential supplies. Defenders of the sanctions point to the fact that by October of 2000, Iraq was pumping more oil than before 1990, proof, they say, that any suffering of the Iraqi people is largely the result of inept and corrupt government. But volume of oil pumped does not equate to adequate food and health services. Fully one-third of oil revenues go to pay for UN costs in Iraq and to Kuwait for war reparations. Other revenues must pay for the cost of producing the oil itself. What is left for humanitarian needs? About $252 per person annually, or about 70 cents per day. For example, in the education sector the OFF program has allowed the government to spend US$23 million per year. But that is just 10 percent of what was spent before the Gulf War began.
In fact, the OFF has stabilized the humanitarian crisis, meaning 5,000 children still die every month because of the maintenance of the sanctions. As a UN study itself recommended in 1999, the only thing that will reverse the death and destruction-rather than stabilize it-is a restoration of the Iraqi economy. In other words, a lifting of the economic sanctions.

Q: What about the latest UN resolution 1284? Isn't this a new step forward in alleviating the suffering?

A: UN resolution 1284 was passed in December 1999 by the Security Council. It promised to "suspend" (not end) sanctions if Iraq cooperates with a new UN arms inspection team, which Iraq has refused to do. It also lifts the cap on the amount of oil Iraq can sell on the market. But the sanctions committee will continue to screen out "dual use" items and the bureaucratic delays and red tape will foreclose any possibility of rebuilding the social and economic structures needed for Iraqi society to return to normal. Resolution 1284 merely tinkers with a deeply flawed sanctions program rather than starting on a new track.

A: Yes it could. But we must be clear about the rationale and purpose of any sanctions. Some quarters, for example, have called for a blockade of clearly defined military hardware and technology that would be tied to the human rights record of the Iraqi government. The Canadian churches have supported similar policies in other contexts as a way of stopping or preventing governments from using weapons against their own populations or other civilians. But such policies must be applied against consistent human rights standards, not just against countries that are labelled as enemies of the West. Until major arms exporting countries agree to a common framework, selective application reveals a political agenda based more on self-interest than on respecting universal human rights. There is also the question of how such a framework could be applied against those arms-producing countries that employ their own military against civilians (for example, US bombing raids in Iraq).

Despite these challenges, sanctions could still be used effectively as a means of ensuring respect for international law. Such a sanctions framework would obviously look very different from the current sanctions policy in Iraq, which has itself flouted international law rather than implemented it.

A: First, stop a murderous policy that is illogical, illegal and immoral. Lifting the sanctions will also help restore the institutions of civil society in Iraq, which are the necessary means for instituting democracy and change. Then, begin a new policy that focuses on demilitarization of the Middle East, one of the most heavily armed regions of the world and a past boon for global military industries. Work towards the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction in all countries, including the use of debilitating sanctions against civilian populations.

Top of page

	Church Response to Iraqi Suffering

Christianity has ancient ties to the region of Iraq, with its ancient biblical cities of Babylon and Ur. The modern Christian population of approximately 1,000,000, or about 5 percent of the total population, is descended from Christians who lived in the region before the Arab invasions of the 7th century. They are comprised mainly of Chaldean Catholics (65 percent of Christians), as well as Orthodox, Assyrian, and a small number of Protestant churches. After the Gulf War, at least 10 percent of these Christians fled the country, along with many other Iraqis.

Churches in Iraq, Canada and around the world have reacted to the devastating human toll caused by the sanctions in at least two ways. As one response, the churches have alleviated the immediate human suffering caused by shortages of food, clean water, medicines and shelter. The Middle East Council of Churches has facilitated an emergency ecumenical relief program for almost ten years, which has brought desperately needed supplies into the country. Given the complexities of operating in Iraq, the churches have been a significant presence in Iraq where the government has allowed only a tiny number of foreign agencies to work.

In Canada churches and church agencies have contributed to emergency needs in a variety of ways: helping to rebuild schools and hospitals, shipping medicines, and sending food supplies. The Canadian Foodgrains Bank, for example, has sent more than 4600 tonnes of food to Iraq since 1995. The Mennonite Central Committee has had the unique opportunity of placing personnel in Iraq as a concrete act of solidarity with a people who have experienced extreme isolation.

But given the massive needs of a population of 23 million, the humanitarian supplies brought in by the churches amount to only a tiny fraction of what is needed. Given that Iraq has and can support its own population quite easily (Iraqis are quick to point out that before the Gulf War Iraq was a giver of aid, rather than a receiver), churches have recognized that a just and long term solution lies in the removal of the sanctions which have crippled the country. In this sense, churches have advocated for a change in national and international policies to address the causes of poverty and injustice in Iraq. God asks us to choose life rather than death (Deuteronomy 30:19). In Iraq the sanctions have brought death in staggering numbers. The Gospel message calls us to speak out against the arrogance, greed and racism that are the underpinnings of the sanctions.

The Canadian churches have challenged the Canadian government to change course with regard to the sanctions and use their influence in the United Nations and other international forums to work for peace in Iraq. Christian voices from around the world have spoken out in the same vein. Clearly, the issue of sanctions against Iraq is one of the most serious justice problems to confront the church today.

What the churches have said...

"The present sanctions regime has a punitive character and reveals a tendency for political consideration to take precedence over objective evaluation of facts."
- World Council of Churches

"We are called to relieve suffering and answer the cry of the oppressed. We yearn for the day when this kind of power-diplomacy and international gamesmanship over Iraq can end to the benefit of those who have most suffered: the innocent."
- Middle East Council of Churches

"...our thoughts and prayers are with those who suffer and cry out for change in Iraq, change that would mean enhanced human rights and political freedoms as well as economic and social conditions. The best way for us to respond to their call is to end this devastating embargo..."
- Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops

"The churches cannot remain silent in light of the great suffering of the Iraqi people over the past decade. The sanctions are an act of war and injustice on innocent children, women and men. The destruction wrought by the military assault, which includes artillery and bombs with depleted uranium have furthermore poisoned and desecrated God's creation in Iraq. This incredible assault on a people, their culture, and their land must be abhorred and opposed by Christians seeking to be faithful to God in upholding the sanctity of life. There are no theological or moral arguments to justify the killing of one innocent Iraqi."
- Canadian churches ecumenical statement

Top of page

	The Canadian Government and Iraq

The key architects and enforcers of sanctions have been the US And their chief ally on the UN Security Council, Britain. Regrettably, Canadian policy has rarely strayed from that of these two countries. During the intense military phase of the Gulf War in 1991, Canadian military forces played an active role in providing air protection for bombing raids. That action plus Canada's participation in enforcing sanctions in subsequent years has cost Canadian taxpayers over $1 billion (Toronto Star, May 1, 2000). That figure stands in stark contrast to a $1 million contribution for humanitarian goods which the Canadian government announced with much fanfare in April 2000.

The Canadian government, out of a stated concern about the humanitarian impacts of the sanctions, has made some attempts to instigate changes to the sanctions regime. For example, it was at the suggestion of the Canadian government that a UN panel was formed to study the humanitarian impact of sanctions in 1999. Canada also claimed to have been the main facilitator of UN resolution 1284 passed in December 1999. But it must surely be obvious to Canadian policy makers after ten years that neither attempt to fine tune the sanctions has resulted in significant changes in impact on the Iraqi people. Real solutions lie in another approach.

Canada's foreign policy goal of "human security" is incompatible with support for the sanctions regime. But our government has steadfastly refused to seriously challenge the American/British positions, even after winning a much coveted Security Council seat in early 1999 where it had a clear forum to do so. Canada would not be alone in opposing a continuation of the economic sanctions since UN Security Council members France, China, and Russia and many other countries have made clear their growing opposition to the sanctions. Instead, Canada has been applauded by the US as one of its closest supporters on the Iraq issue (New York Times, "UN Readies Team to Check Weapons Held by the Iraqis," August 22, 2000).

Besides a growing citizens' outcry against Canadian government complicity in maintaining the sanctions, an all-party parliamentary committee unanimously recommended in April 2000 that the economic sanctions be lifted as soon as possible. The government's response was to initially remain silent, then disingenuously suggest that UN resolution 1284 already meets most of the requirements to lift economic sanctions.

As a nation that has prided itself in the past on playing a peace-making role in the world, Canada might have been expected to play a more constructive role in bringing peace to the region. But it is not too late to change course. The right thing for the Canadian government to do is to admit the failure of the past ten years of sanctions and to join the international voices that are calling for a new policy track.

To make your views on Iraq known to the Canadian government, see the section "How can we respond?" immediately below.

Top of page

	How can we respond?

Learn more!
Much of the suffering and death in Iraq has gone unreported in the Canadian media. The box on the right provides some excellent resources-videos, websites, books, and other materials-that can deepen your understanding of what is happening in Iraq, and why.

Act!
Many of the websites listed have action campaigns that you can join. Write letters to the editor of your local paper. Brainstorm with other people in your church or community on ideas to raise awareness in your area and mobilize others to join in the opposition to the sanctions.

To learn more about the war against Iraq:

Videos:

Silent Weapon: The Embargo against Iraq (A documentary film from the Institute for Development Training specifically for church audiences, 26 minutes, 1999)

Paying the Price: Killing the Children of Iraq (A documentary film produced by British film-maker John Pilger, 74 minutes, 2000)

Hidden Wars of Desert Storm (Free-Will Productions, phone (818) 487-2879, 64 minutes, 2000)

The above videos may be available in your national church video library. You may also order them through KAIROS.

Websites:

Web site of the Canadian network of organizations that are working together to oppose the sanctions.

http://www.canesi.org

Website of the Iraq Action Coalition, one of the main NGOs in the US opposing the sanctions.

http://www.iraqaction.org

General website on Iraq with everything from history to culture to facts about the Gulf War.

http://www.iraqinfo.cjb.net

UN Oil for Food website that provides information on UN resolutions and facts and figures relating to the Oil for Food program of the UN.

http://www.un.org/depts/oip

Books:

Iraq under Siege: The Deadly Impact of Sanctions and War (South End Press, Cambridge, 1999).

Top of page

KAIROS
Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives
129 St. Clair Ave. West • Toronto, ON • Canada • M4V 1N5
Tel: 416-463-5312 | Toll-free: 1-877-403-8933| Fax: 416-463-5569